S&W Stumbles Again
Smith & Wesson signed an appalling agreement with the Clinton-Gore administration, resulting in a consumer boycott that hurt the company so badly that manufacturing was halted at two plants for two months and the company was subsequently sold. (British company Tomkins had purchased S&W for $112 million in 1987 and was forced to sell it for a mere $15 million just one year after the disastrous decision to kowtow to Clinton.)The once-great name has once again made a mistake of staggering proportions. It settled a lawsuit in which the parents of a boy who was shot in the face by another boy sued the gun maker (not the parents of the 15 y.o. shooter, who were also the morons that owned the gun and left it loaded and within reach).
The plaintiffs contend that the manufacturer was liable because they produced a product that should have been child proofed. Smith & Wesson contend that their product was not defective (then why did you settle!).
"The settlement marks the first time a gun manufacturer has paid to settle a claim for failing to childproof a gun," said a statement by Trial Lawyers for Public Justice, a public interest law firm based in Washington, D.C.Thanks to S&W, it won't be the last.
The design changes demanded by the plaintiffs include:
- A safety device on the gun to keep it from firing with the magazine removed.
- A device to show whether a gun is unloaded or there is a bullet in the chamber.
- Child proofing (note that the shooter was 15)
And the shooter? Oh, he was convicted of aggravated battery and possession of a firearm in July 1998 and placed in Juvenile Justice Authority custody.
Time to boycott Smith & Wesson again.
Update: Clayton Cramer has an interesting idea:
Wouldn't it be entertaining to turn the tables, and file suit for injuries caused by gun control laws? We can't sue governments for disarming victims; they enjoy sovereign immunity for actions that are within the normal scope of governmental activity--and unfortunately, passing stupid and counterproductive laws is definitely within the normal scope of governmental activity. But wouldn't it be entertaining to file suit against the gun control groups that have lobbied for these laws?Read it all. Heh.
Blog post #4868 in category
Second Amendment
posted 28 April 05
When I was considering purchasing a handgun for the 1st time, some hardcore gun enthusiasts I knew explained their personal boycott of S&W for this and other perceived sellouts to the gun control movement. I listened to them, but in the end decided that none of that had anything to do with the quality of the product- especially since I ended up buying 2 S&W revolvers manufactured in the 70s: a .357 Combat Magnum and a Model 29 .44 Magnum.
Posted by Barry on Tuesday at 4:32 AM